Monday, April 24, 2017

153. What’s about } totally wrong?

David
Shields invited me to watch I Think You’re Totally Wrong (2017*), directed by
James Franco. It’s an adaptation of an argument between David Shields and Caleb
Powell. Its subject, ostensibly, is a life dedicated to art (Shields’) vs. a
life dedicated to living (Powell’s). That’s a dumb argument, and it’s quickly
apparent Shields and Powell aren’t really arguing art vs. life, but success vs.
failure and who is a better man. James Franco’s appearance in the film
radically distorts those arguments—Shields and Powell and their discussions are
utterly dwarfed by Franco’s larger-than-life presence.

After I
watched the film, I sent Shields my comments; I asked if it was okay to post
said comments. He said he’d be “honored.” What follows is a selection from my
comments.

Why “white guys bullshit”? Are there no books and films in which two
black guys bullshit? Two Pakistani women? Is it difficult to recognize when
people from a culture not your own are bullshitting? Why “bullshit?"
and not dialogue? Dialogue can't be too rarefied if what follows “white
guys bullshit” is “Apollonian and Dionysian.”

David
explains why Caleb. Caleb does not explain himself. David
wants to be questioned; Caleb want to have a good time (according to David).

Broken
leg. Coma. How do you avoid the tendency to always have a reply anecdote? To
one-up?

David: "Here's
are chance to reanimate both your art and my life." [Is this line
scripted? Rehearsed? Previously articulated?]

Caleb has
four-wheel drive, snow chains, he helped build the deck, he did some roofing.
Blue collar work. David lights a fire in the fireplace. “I'm Bertrand Russell
who couldn't even start—who couldn't even boil water.” Caleb doubts this
anecdote. Good on Caleb--how could you not? Russell's teapot. Caleb suggests
maybe Russell didn't boil water. More plausible, but still not
likely. The kind of anecdote artists perpetuate about other artists and themselves.
What does that anecdote admire?

Caleb: “You
can't just play to play.” According to David, Caleb's work lacks an “x-factor.” “It's not making any meaning.” “Your work
stands next to the world.” Chess = a game, a competition, intellectualism.
Caleb drinks beer, David, water.

David and
Caleb do not look alike, tho it would be easy to reduce them to two bald, white
middle-aged men. Collapse the split screen.

How does a
non-artist relate to this film? Is this film for the “10,000 people who
have MFAs”? “I want everyone...,” Caleb says. 10,000 people?
That would be a fucking amazing crowd. How many audiences of two have I
traveled three hundred miles for? About 10,000.

Why is it
making the world better vs. art? Is the only way to make the world better to
directly engage with some kind of politics? Another false dichotomy: the “real world” vs. the academic world. Is David strictly an academic,
or is he an academic and a practicing artist? The real world = changing tires.

David: “...you
gotta start with the chaos of life whereas in a way I always want to start with
the cathedral of art.” [Scripted? Rehearsed? Previously articulated?]

Genius.
Get to the bottom of talent. A work of amazing power vs. a work that helps everyone.
A real dilemma. A work of amazing power might help people. How does art help?
(Let's ignore art therapy, etc.) Let's put dresser drawers in a bust of Venus.

SALARY.

Caleb has never earned more than $20,000 in a year. David earns approximately
$170,000 a year. What does James Franco earn per year? How much is changing a
tire worth?

Caleb
twice has had sexual encounters with men he thought were women. Is this
humiliating? Might it make his wife nervous? Does it ultimately seem as trivial
as having never changed a tire? Is a bad stutter or is feeling like a “walking dead man” or “you have a high-pitched voice” less
of a cross to bear than a blowjob from a transexual? Is this about manhood?
James challenges David: “...if you don't have any material to
man-up....”

What James
is interested in is being an artist. And being an artist, for
James, is taking risk. He uses the word “stake"—as in, what's at
stake. A very writers' workshop term. [In the voice of my least favorite
professor: But, Adam, what exactly is at stake here?]

I like
James' presence is this film a lot. It's so bizarre. He walks among
us.

Expression
in this film. When Caleb describes Waltz with Bashir, he becomes
visibly upset. David, in response to this, sits up—he knows it's no longer
appropriate to lay sprawled on the couch. David is a performer—he's a
professor! Caleb appears not to perform. Caleb becomes
emotional when describing a work of art, not when discussing his family, or
being overseas—i.e., his life.

That art
causes Caleb to choke up is the big twist David suggests a film needs.

It goes
without saying that James is an actor too. James also writes fiction—David sees
fiction as a “veil.” “The moment it was fiction, it was dead. The Moment it was
nonfiction, our nerves jangled.” Maybe fiction creates a space between author
and material so author can breathe, but the author is always held accountable.

Caleb “confesses” he took photos of David asleep. Did he? James' shadow
follows Caleb and David to the car.

[ *IMDb states that the films release date is 2014. I asked David about this; David asked Oliver Ike, president & founder of First Pond Entertainment, if that date could be changed. Ike wrote, “The year listing cannot be changed. They go by production year.” Why would IMDb do that? Obviously the date we want is the release date. ]